Talk:2008 New England Patriots season

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

References and punctuation[edit]

Why put the ref tags inside the punctuation? Especially when there are multiple references, it looks really odd. [Example[1][1][1][1][1].] Also, there's the advantage that if you edit around a ref tag, it's a lot easier to find the punctuation and avoid errors if the punctuation is right next to the text, rather than after the reference(s). Samer (talk) 03:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To me it looks cleaner, and prevents the ref from being separated from the text it supports, especially when there's a period and a space or two spaces or whatnot before there's a citation. Just keeps everything more compact. Pats1 T/C 03:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a difference in "compactness" (it makes no difference sizewise, and, if anything, it looks bigger on the page with the references in). And, as someone who's actually been paid to proofread/edit, I can tell you that it's a lot easier to lose punctuation marks than it is to misplace a ref tag. Samer (talk) 04:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any rule requiring consistency across articles (if you and I stopped editing today, I don't see why future editors should be beholden to the choices either of us made). Rather than continuing the edit wars—it's obvious that this is a matter of style, and that neither of us is objectively "right"—why don't we watch and see how people add reference tags? If there's a clear preference one way or the other, I'll gladly follow it, even if it's not the way I would do it. (Moreover, in fact, by your logic, shouldn't the NEP pages conform to the formatting of the NFL season pages?)Samer (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strength of schedule[edit]

If you want to go ahead and explain what you mean by "weakest," go ahead. But to say that the Pats will have the weakest schedule is essentially a violation of WP:CBALL. Samer (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out they do have the weakest schedule, based upon opponents' records from 2007. Useight (talk) 01:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Schedule[edit]

Why are the Patriots playing Indianapolis at the RCA dome again in 2008? They played them at Indianapolis in 2007 as well, and both years the match-ups were determined based on both teams finishing first (not a total division match-up). I thought home and away games alternated even between division winners. Juve2000 (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The two intraconference games based on the prior season's standings do not rotate home and away annually, more like biannually. I wish I could find and give you a link to an online copy of the detailed 2002-09 NFL schedule formula that is found in the annual NFL Record and Fact paperback that is published each year. But instead, I have copied verbatim what was printed in the 2002 version:
AFC East Intraconference by Position
Season Home Away
2002 AFC North AFC South
2003 AFC North AFC West
2004 AFC South AFC West
2005 AFC South AFC North
2006 AFC West AFC North
2007 AFC West AFC South
2008 AFC North AFC South
2009 AFC North AFC West

Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for that info. Assuming both Indianapolis and New England continue finishing first in their respective divisions, because of this 'bi-annual' rotation and the way the home-away rotation lines up in the year their divisions are matched up, New England will play 3 years in a row at Indianapolis, followed by 3 consecutive years at Gillette Stadium. Juve2000 (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency v. utility[edit]

As I've said before, just because something was done a certain way in previous years does not mean that it needs to be maintained in that manner in future years just for the sake of consistency. In this particular case, I think that explaining what happened to draft picks in the Draft section (whether through a paragraph or notes below the table) is far better than having to wade down to a notes section and then back up again. Samer (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well there's no need to "wade down" -- that's what the reference links are for. You just click the reference number and, voila, you're there! Besides, an opening paragraph to the draft section would look silly with the detail required to accurately document the trade. Last fall, I took a weekend to use the Patriots.com draft history and other sources to put together each footnote. I even included cross-references to other trades, so if they traded a pick that they had acquired via trade, there would be a painstakingly accurate account of how each pick was acquired. Pats1 T/C 11:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arguing consistency with past articles isn't a particularly compelling reason not to change things, IMO, but I can at least understand it. But I simply can't buy arguing consistency with other articles when no such consistency exists. Just considering the scheduling tables, there is significant disagreement over (1) whether or not to link every occurrence of the stadium name, (2) whether or not to display time zones, (3) how to display said time zones, (4) whether or not to include records to date, (5) how to align the columns, (6) the order in which the columns are to be displayed, (7) whether home and/or away games are to be explicitly indicated in the opponent column, (8) how such indications are made if they are made, (9) whether or not flex scheduling should be indicated, (10) how to do so, and even (11) the font size used for the table.
The thing is, those issues are so minor that they really don't make any difference. There's no need to quibble over this kind of stuff. That's why, for the sake of saving us both work in order to standardize all the other seasons' charts, just keep it the way it is. There's nothing practically unsound with it. It's not a big deal, that's why I'm focusing my attention on other, more important aspects of the page. Pats1 T/C 11:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of that said, I'm not making changes simply for the sake of being contrary; I honestly believe that these changes will either simplify or improve on the article without removing useful information. Similarly, I can't see how you can use non-existent consistency as an argument to circumvent principles in the MOS, such as WP:VER (e.g., "The Meadowlands", which is the verifiable name used by the NFL in all official publications) and WP:LINK. Samer (talk) 03:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I have better things to do than trying to make every chart comply to a tee with the MOS, especially when the MOS is generally geared more towards prose and other article elements. As such, there's really no "set in stone" way to do things; I claim consistency because it's what we've gone with on every other Patriots page, and what a lot of other season articles have gone with (although many don't have constant monitors like us, so IPs have a tendency to get in there and annoyingly mess with things, like changing the headings to all capitalized words, etc.). I see all the other ways at best negligible improvements over the current versions -- more like alternate styles of going about making these charts. I know it's a slow time in the offseason, but I'd really like to focus my efforts somewhere other than here. I just don't think arguing over this is at all worth it. It looks fine and functions fine as it is, all the other Pats season articles (as I've slowly worked my way backwards in history, adding schedules, drafts, rosters, and coaches) were and will be done with this standard, so I think it's best just to leave it be. Pats1 T/C 11:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Kaczur[edit]

I think it's worth noting that much of what is stated in the paragraph on Kaczur is, at this point, is merely alleged; I reworded the paragraph somewhat to make it more clear. Samer (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same-article citations[edit]

I think it's rather excessive to have multiple links within the same sentence to the same article, especially if that's the only article ref for that sentence. (In fact, I would argue that you could have just one link for the entire paragraph, but that's just my opinion.) Samer (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opening paragraph[edit]

When I read the following sentence from the opening paragraph: The Patriots will enter the season with an NFL-record 19-game regular season winning streak after a 16-0 regular season in 2007, and will try to reach Super Bowl XLIII after losing 17-14 to the New York Giants in Super Bowl XLII, I am pleased to see the reference to the 19-game winning streak, because that is something that makes the Pats' upcoming season truly notable, and thus appropriate for inclusion in the opening. But the part that says that the Pats "will try to reach Super Bowl XLIII" is not even worthy of being called pap. This article is supposed to be about the Patriots' season, but this is a statement that is equally true about all 32 teams in the league. It would be like reading an article on the white oak, and reading in the lead paragraph that the white oak "has leaves which it uses for photosynthesis". Sure that's true, but not just for the white oak, but for every tree on the planet, and therefore, it does not belong in the lead (or probably, anywhere in an article on a specific tree). Telling us that the Pats plan are trying to reach SB XLIII is just empty calories, it tells us nothing. My 2¢ worth. Unschool (talk) 02:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know -- once the season starts (i.e. present tense) I'll change it. Pats1 T/C 02:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? If you think that this is a matter of verb tense, you've completely missed the point. Unschool (talk) 04:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean that once the season starts there's a totally different opening paragraph structure I use. I just don't use it yet since it's in the present tense. Pats1 T/C 12:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still far from certain that you understand my point (my judgement on that is affected by previous discussions that we've had on matters of style), but it's a minor point, and I shall not change the current wording. Unschool (talk) 12:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you mean - but the opening paragraph is obviously going to change between now and the start of the season, and again by the end of the season, so I'm not concerned about the wording right now. Pats1 T/C 12:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... He just doesn't get it... or more likely doesn't want to. WP:OWN seems to be for everyone else. That someone takes time to complain has no bearing or weight with him.

Pardon his single mindedness... he owns these and works for the Herald or something. Even the pats own site links to a half-dozen plus publications.Now if he'd just learn to use other sources, he'd be a better legendary editor in his own mind! (Or perhaps he'd rather canonize the Herald or maybe he works for Reiss?) // FrankB 13:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, you're not kidding. He really doesn't get it. Not one bit. Unschool (talk) 20:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind words. I'll keep them in mind. Pats1 T/C 20:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Okay, I apologize. My comments certainly could've been interpreted as being mildly uncivil. I was just commiserating with a fellow editor, and this wasn't the right place to do it. Maybe no place was. I just have given up on having you understand what I (and, apparently others) feel about the lead to this article. We'd discussed it before, to no satisfactory end. I brought it up again last month. I thought I saw a glimmer of light in the new opening, and sincerely gave it praise where it deserved it and also pointed out the weakness (namely: that to include the fact that the Patriots "will try to reach Super Bowl XLIII" is meaningless, since the same can be said of each and every team and such a bland and inconsequential statement has no place in the lead [if anywhere] in the article) only to have you dismiss my concerns because it would be taken care of after the beginning of the season." This made me think that you did not understand my concerns (as I could not see how it would be different whether this was before or after the season opened), but you said not to worry, all would be better. And, as Fabartus noted above, you didn't understand, and all I was trying to do was to reaffirm to Fabartus, now that the season is well underway, that we can see that he was correct.
Look, Pats, you are clearly a great Wikipedian contributor, and I don't want to diminish your efforts here. This project would be significantly less complete without the work you have put into it (and no, there's no sarcasm intended in that comment—I truly mean it). But you and I simply disagree on some issues regarding writing style. And you know what? It's no big deal. Very fortunately, the articles that I see you writing on are articles that are probably hurt less by your mechanical style than would be, say, articles on countries or animals. In fact, it may very well be that most readers of articles like this one prefer the style of writing that you promote—what do I know? So for the forseeable future, I leave this to you, because you're doing a lot of good with your contributions, and you're not really doing any harm. Your writing may not be the most fascinating, but you are getting the information out there to the reader. This just isn't an issue that either of us needs to waste time on. Unschool (talk) 22:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks...like I said, the opening will be completely different come (hopefully) February, so I wouldn't worry about it too much right now. Pats1 T/C 23:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And it's not like my writing cannot be fascinating. I did win an award for it once, although that was for a game summary basically like the ones I do here. :D Pats1 T/C 23:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added play by play[edit]

with this edit, I added play by play link to the game by game reference data we provide.

  • The similarity in format of the file name (building) and accessing parts of the retrieval url, suggest this might make a good table-element template... given the nfl.com id# and the week, the template could build both links, and like my example, present them as "clean" plainlinks.
  • OTOH, spaced out vertically as I did, the span class, etc. formatting and url's are easily editable and readable, so there isn't a strong reason to templatize here either.

Cheers // FrankB 14:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2008 New England Patriots season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 04:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 2008 New England Patriots season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links need modification[edit]

Perhaps the column name needs changing as well, but all the links under the "NFL.com Recap" column in the Schedule section are broken. NFL.com now only provides box scores for games from the 2008 season. 146.115.179.233 (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008_New_England_Patriots_season&oldid=1196521015"